It appears that he once interfered in football department matters, but no longer does.

Just so we are clear - is it still obvious to you that Schwab has not had direct input into our draft selections since 2008?

Just so we are clear - is it still obvious to you that Schwab has not had direct input into our draft selections since 2008?

I doubt it, but I'm not in a position to know. So my answer would be that a club CEO does not interfere with draft selections.

Just so we're clear - if you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

I doubt it, but I'm not in a position to know. So my answer would be that a club CEO does not interfere with draft selections.

Just so we're clear - if you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

So you have no idea but you are giving him the benefit of the doubt because good CEOs don't interfere with draft selections.

Therefore, Schwab must not have interfered with draft selections.

Therefore, Schwab must be a good CEO.

Nice logic there mate. Especially when you consider that this is a guy with a track record of inappropriate interference in football matters.

If you have no idea about whether Schwab has been involved in drafting - why did you say that it was obvious that he hadn't?

For what it is worth, I do know that Schwab has interfered with our drafting since 2008 and I have had this verified by a member of the Stynes/Mclardy Board.

Do you ever comment on the actual footy HSOG?

669 posts and it seems every single one of them is about the administration / board etc

For what it is worth, I do know that Schwab has interfered with our drafting since 2008 and I have had this verified by a member of the Stynes/Mclardy Board.

Wouldn't surprise me that he was involved in drafting decisions prior to Neeld coming on board and there has been suggestion he was involved in the decision to retire certain players (indeed this seemed to be a big bone of contention with the playing group).

But i would be very surprised if he has had any input whatsoever in drafting decisions since Neeld has come on board. I can't imagine Neeld accepting any interference at all from a CEO and i suspect he has made that clear with the board and even made it a condition of his accepting the gig. By some accounts the board have backed him in this regard and made it clear to CS the boundaries of his role.

Just so we are clear - is it still obvious to you that Schwab has not had direct input into our draft selections since 2008?

Define 'input'.

Wouldn't surprise me that he was involved in drafting decisions prior to Neeld coming on board and there has been suggestion he was involved in the decision to retire certain players (indeed this seemed to be a big bone of contention with the playing group).

But i would be very surprised if he has had any input whatsoever in drafting decisions since Neeld has come on board. I can't imagine Neeld accepting any interference at all from a CEO and i suspect he has made that clear with the board and even made it a condition of his accepting the gig. By some accounts the board have backed him in this regard and made it clear to CS the boundaries of his role.

We can only hope.

I can't say I'm convinced about the Board's ability to remain impartial though - they have already demonstrated that they were not able to get rid of Schwab last time when the heat was on.

Do you ever comment on the actual footy HSOG?

669 posts and it seems every single one of them is about the administration / board etc

At least I am being relevant - what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?

Define 'input'.

Why don't you?

We can only hope.

I can't say I'm convinced about the Board's ability to remain impartial though - they have already demonstrated that they were not able to get rid of Schwab last time when the heat was on.

maybe the board didn't want to get rid of him unlike yourself.

I was suprised he stayed. But i have no idea if he was the root of the problem.

At least I am being relevant - what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?

hahaha that's really funny shadey. thanks for the laugh of the day (so far)

Why don't you?

why dont you. Youre the one who introduced the notion so YOU need to provide context to give it relevance.

Either give substance to your continual sniping and pot shotting or mate, shut it.

So you have no idea but you are giving him the benefit of the doubt because good CEOs don't interfere with draft selections.

Therefore, Schwab must not have interfered with draft selections.

Therefore, Schwab must be a good CEO.

Nice logic there mate. Especially when you consider that this is a guy with a track record of inappropriate interference in football matters.

If you have no idea about whether Schwab has been involved in drafting - why did you say that it was obvious that he hadn't?

For what it is worth, I do know that Schwab has interfered with our drafting since 2008 and I have had this verified by a member of the Stynes/Mclardy Board.

What Logic ? I said I'll back the Board, but the recruiting/developing hasn't been good under his watch at Freo, or Melbourne and that he has to take some responsibility for that.

Just so we're clear - if you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

why dont you. Youre the one who introduced the notion so YOU need to provide context to give it relevance.

Either give substance to your continual sniping and pot shotting or mate, shut it.

I don't owe you anything

What Logic ? I said I'll back the Board, but the recruiting/developing hasn't been good under his watch at Freo, or Melbourne and that he has to take some responsibility for that.

Just so we're clear - if you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

What logic indeed.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not going to reveal my sources, but whatever you and others might think of my supposed biases, I don't make things up.

Here's a tip for you, next time you're rubbing shoulders with senior figures at the club, instead of battering your eyelashes at them, why don't you ask them some tough questions about Schwab's involvement with drafting. Assuming they are willing to show the slightest amount of transparency towards a paid up MFC member, you can then come back on here and apologize for your ignorance.

I don't owe you anything

Nice undelining and colouring there HSOG... must have taxed you a bit.

its not just I, but to all those you wish to impart your wisdom ( sic ) that you ought to explain yourself. But you cant can you. Youre just full of vexatious crap.

Must really irk you that we will climb from the abyss and resurrect the club..all without anything of a helpful nature from either yourself or your band of wearisome cronies.

Wont reveal your sources !, my, my my youre really delusional arent you.

Either flesh out your ambit rhetoric with FACTS, actually acknowledge your sources, even go so far as to outline your actual beef with this club or quite frankly go hide under that rock you hide behind.

Go and join your mate Caro , given her any juicy morsels lately ??

What logic indeed.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not going to reveal my sources, but whatever you and others might think of my supposed biases, I don't make things up.

Here's a tip for you, next time you're rubbing shoulders with senior figures at the club, instead of battering your eyelashes at them, why don't you ask them some tough questions about Schwab's involvement with drafting. Assuming they are willing to show the slightest amount of transparency towards a paid up MFC member, you can then come back on here and apologize for your ignorance.

1) You mean it's not logical to back the Board ? It's my choice and I do.

2) I have no interest in rubbing shoulders with anyone.

3) I bat eyelashes to nobody.

4) You have no evidence that Schwab interfered with draft selections.

5) People that say "I don't make things up" usually make things up. Why are you making things up ?

6) You just admitted that you're biased. Learning to have balance in one's arguments would serve you well.

7) On an exciting day for the club you're more interested in talking about Cameron Schwab. Are you familiar with the term, "sad sack" ?

You really bore me.

What logic indeed.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not going to reveal my sources, but whatever you and others might think of my supposed biases, I don't make things up.

Here's a tip for you, next time you're rubbing shoulders with senior figures at the club, instead of battering your eyelashes at them, why don't you ask them some tough questions about Schwab's involvement with drafting. Assuming they are willing to show the slightest amount of transparency towards a paid up MFC member, you can then come back on here and apologize for your ignorance.

here's a tip for you Hazy...unless you elaborate on what your information is..(we are anonymous here) your sources are no better than anyone elses.

And just maybe CS did get involved with recruiting because he could see the disaster unfolding & had the balls to put his job on the line until a fulltime FD was implemented.....

Why don't you?

It's not encumbent on me to define what you meant by 'input'.

'Input' could be anything from contractual advice about a player to direct input into a pick. The former could be entirely proper, the latter would probably be improper.

@HazyShadeofGrinter

It says everything about you that on the morning after a golden night for the club, all you can think to do is come on here and whine about Schwab. Seriously mate ... take that axe you mindlessly keep grinding and go fling it off St.Kilda pier. You'll feel good about yourself afterwards.

@HazyShadeofGrinter

It says everything about you that on the morning after a golden night for the club, all you can think to do is come on here and whine about Schwab. Seriously mate ... take that axe you mindlessly keep grinding and go fling it off St.Kilda pier. You'll feel good about yourself afterwards.

are you happy with last night recruiting Hazy?

Certainly is a new look list since 186.

So i consider the present board & all below it to be very proactive.

I think in order to clear up the board's opinion on Cameron Schwab, we should consult what Jimmy said about the man prior to Dean Bailey's sacking:

'On the Friday before the match, the board discussed whether to offer Cameron a new tenure. I felt that some aspects of his work were first class and that perhaps two thirds of what he did overall was good. But I was frustrated by the fact that was choosing to ignore the board and seemed determined to run his own agenda. Some of his behavior was proving destructive and it was clear he had lost the faith of the coach and the playing group. I did not believe he should be offered an extension, and on the Saturday morning we informed him.'

'Eventually, it was proposed that we should give Cameron his three months' notice but simultaneously offer him a new one-year deal. But first, he would need to hear some home truths about aspects of his job that he needed to agree to improve on. They mostly involved his approach and attitude, not a lack of ability.'

The part 'had lost the faith of the coach and the playing group' is the bit that stands out to me. How can a CEO lose the faith of the players? He can lose the faith of the board but of the players? Sure, they aren't passing like ships in the night and they will interact but when you consider the frequency and quality of normal CEO/player interactions, this shouldn't be an issue. Shouldn't the role of the CEO revolve around making business decisions for the club? They may have to make personnel calls on certain people in the club but their role should exclusively be the club's bottom line. Reading that piece above, while Jimmy never says it, I get the inkling that CS was interfering in some certain way outside his brief. The 'seemed determined to run his own agenda' bit says to me in so many words the exact same thing i.e. he is told one thing but does his own thing anyway.

I think CS is a pretty handy CEO who should have nothing to do with list management/coaching personnel as well as someone whose role in marketing the club should be cut back a bit. We have got record membership but I think a lot of that was on the back of Jimmy getting everyone to regain their faith in the club. I think CS tends to focus too much on the 'tradition' element of the club and I think that appeals to people who need to reflect on the past as our presents have been so dismal. As Leigh Matthews said in his autobiography, 'Tradition is nice but it counts for very little if the opposition are working harder than you and with more enterprise'. I would like the club to start to appeal to people who may look at the club and want to support it but may be conned by the traditional stereotypes that surround us. A New Zealander I know once told me that he was looking for an AFL team to support and he was thinking of barracking for the Dees. Now, would you tell someone who is a blank slate when it comes to AFL that you should support us because of hundreds of years of tradition that include: a golden era that ended 50 years ago and has shown few signs of coming back, private school boy style blazers and a trumpeter who plays before our games? This bloke was a rugby league man and would have laughed at me (go to any Storm game and you will know what I mean).

You know what Hugh? Sometimes you bore me too. But I can't bring myself to block you because every now and then you come up with absolute gold like this:

I bat eyelashes to nobody.

So butch!

We can only hope.

I can't say I'm convinced about the Board's ability to remain impartial though - they have already demonstrated that they were not able to get rid of Schwab last time when the heat was on.

This is based on the assumption that it is something we must do.

If he is performing his role effectively, then it is prudent for him to be retained, in spite of your obvious bias.

Why don't you?

Troll behaviour. Classy.